Talk:Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets
Thompson's planet The page, if it stays, needs a new name (it wasn't Thompson's planet; she just died there) and needs to be rewritten in the proper . This may need to be merged with Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets. -- From Andoria with Love 10:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC) :If page titles must be taken from canon then yes, it needs a retitling. I tried to limit the canonic slight by stating first that the planet has no proper name. Yet i think there should be a page to gather what little we know about that world. Every other TOS planet has one - even "Shore Leave Planet"! I notice in the articles relating to the "By Any Other Name" episode that the writers have taken pains to dodge this lacuna. If you merge the page with "Unnamed A&BQ Planets", can there still be links to that world from the various episode articles? (Now i'll try to sign this): drom 10:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) In most cases where a planet is unnamed in canon and is not attributed to any specific individual (we could call it something like "Kelvan planet" I guess, but then ppl might confuse it for Kelva). If the page is merged, the info will still be included on the page to which it is merged since whoever merges this article's history should place the info into on the other page. If the page is merged to Unnamed A&BQ Planets, there can still be links to the planet's info. For example, if we call the planet "Kelvan planet" when it's on the Unnamed A&BQ Planets, we can use a direct link, like so: Kelvan colony planet. I hope all that made sense... it is pretty early, after all. ;) -- From Andoria with Love 11:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC) ::Perhaps an interesting note for the episode in question, but '''completely' off-topic here. -- Capricorn 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Torona IV or an unnamed planet I changed this page back to identify Torona IV as the planet seen on screen. While it is clear that in the final shooting script, Torona IV name was left out, it is my interpretation that since the planet name was used and seen on screen later on in Generations and is still mentioned in startrek.com, the writers/producers intent here is not to say the planet wasn't Torona IV, rather it was only to make the episode less confusing by leaving the identification of the planet out. And since we accept names from bgsources for unnamed things seen on screen, i think this qualifies. --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:17, November 17, 2012 (UTC) :There's a huge difference between something being given a name in a script, and the details of a situation changing between script and filmed episode yet you assuming the script situation is still valid. The facts about Jaradan space and the meeting place were completely changed for the final version of the episode, and even if an artifact planet still appeared, it's a huge leap to say that means the script version of the Jaradan's deal can be taken as fact. StarTrek.com is not canon, and what it says is probably due to its tendency to get their info from scripts rather then writers and producers. I'm guessing that the art department (not the producers, let alone the writers) working from scripts is also what finally created a canon place called Torana IV in , compare with this "error". :To conclude, while I'd be the first to admit that your opinion on the identification of the planet makes absolute sense, it is not supported by anything that is actually canon, and it's wrong to assume. I strongly feel that these changes weren't warranted. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:38, December 1, 2012 (UTC) I'm not claiming that the script reference is a valid canon reference. I just think since we have this planet article anyways and a valid bg reference source and several apocrypha sources identify it as the planet seen on-screen, and no source gives it another name, it is better to have all the information here instead of creating a section into the unnameds for it. Our canon policy states this is what is done in these cases. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:17, December 1, 2012 (UTC) :You're doing more then that though. You are taking a possible two planets, one unnamed one seen in "big goodbye", and one planet seen on a map in GEN, and merge them into one based on a script that's not even consistent with the episode. If the planet seen in the episode was named in the script, you'd be right, that's indeed the policy. But the situation is more complex. Script and episode are in effect two different versions of the story. In the script, the E is said to travel to the Jarada homeworld, while in the episode, the E merely travels to some prearranged point for a rendez-vous, and once we get there we can see that they're in orbit of some planet (there being no mention of a Jaradan homeworld at that or any point in the episode). The assumption that planet we see corresponds to a planet mentioned in a non-final draft of the script may be a small leap, but it's a leap nonetheless. If it helps you to grok my argument, consider this: for all we know the writers changed those lines because they got an idea for returning the Jarada in a later episode, and wanted to establish them as planet-less nomads. In which case your leap might have caused us to conclude something about the species ("they have a homeworld") which the writers explicitly did not want to imply. I was just speculating there of course, but I think it illustrates that unless the script and episode are in line, saying that that planet seen in the episode was that planet featured in, but cut from the script, is essentially a guess rather then a fact. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:22, December 1, 2012 (UTC) The homeworld bit was apocryphal so i removed that, but I must clarify i am connecting the planets based on startrek.com, which is a valid bg reference source for naming unnamed things seen on screen. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:18, December 1, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with Capricorn - this change seems to "create canon" rather than just objectively reflect what's really there. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:31, December 1, 2012 (UTC) Tessic's colony name? This sounds more like a name on Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets, which is where this came from (I actually restored it since I didn't see this page and nothing was in the edit summary), than an actual name. I assume someone called it this in the episode, but to me that sounds more like a description. - 12:59, July 22, 2010 (UTC) :Well no, this is not the actual name - that's why it still belongs on the Unnamed planets page. But the "Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets" page seems to be more targeted at planets with no inhabitants, and no way to identify it in a way that easily fits into a title. But Tessic makes a major point that he is responsible for the colony, and he is in charge. So it seems consistent with the naming conventions of Makull's homeworld, Kelis' homeworld and Kelemane's planet. - AJ Halliwell 15:42, July 22, 2010 (UTC) I thought we only do that for unnamed homeworlds, but I guess I could be wrong. - 18:46, July 22, 2010 (UTC) The term "Tessic's colony" was not referenced in this episode. In fact, Tessic mentioned his species homeworld which was far away. This article is better placed at Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets and should be moved there. Tom (talk) 13:16, January 31, 2016 (UTC)$ :Support -- Capricorn (talk) 19:39, January 31, 2016 (UTC) Merged. The planet was already listed on the "Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets" article, so a duplicate entry and it was mentioned not to be their homeworld. Tom (talk) 17:48, February 1, 2016 (UTC) Serpent's World First of all, there's no indication that "Serpent's World" is the official name of the planet, rather then the name of the painting. (maybe Jörg could shed light on that though). And potentially secondly, is it really appropriate to take the name of a Sternbach painting and assume that's also the name of the planet depicted when it becomes a set piece on TNG? I guess rewriting the page to be about the painting rather then the planet might be an option - although imo it's not the same situation as for example Mona Lisa; these background paintings are not intended to actually represent Sternbach paintings which have survived in the 24th century. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:31, January 9, 2013 (UTC) :I agree. 31dot (talk) 10:55, January 9, 2013 (UTC) ::Rick Sternbach described the name as a nickname. I agree. Throwback (talk) 12:04, January 9, 2013 (UTC) :::Merged and renamed for this list. Tom (talk) 22:03, March 7, 2015 (UTC) Taurus II This planet was never named in the TAS episode "The Lorelei Signal". The closest thing to it was when Scotty stated that the ship was in orbit over the second planet in the Taurean system. Using other planet 'naming' conventions in Star Trek such as Ceti Alpha V, Cestus III, Janus IV, Talos IV, etc, etc. this planet should be titled Taurean II after the star system it is in. The name Taurus is definately incorrect - as it is never mentioned at all - while the name for the system is used several times in the episode - the Taurean system. Compounding this error is the fact that another planet - the real Taurus II (in Murasaki 312) is specifically named as such in its TOS episode. It astounds me that the usually diligent moderators on this site haven't corrected this error. Instead they lazily threw a link to the 'other' planet using the same name (in listings for both planets) - somehow overlooking a major error that was staring them in the face. :Please don't assume laziness if something is not named as you think it should be named. For what it's worth, you're correct in stating that this planet was not named in the episode (Transcript). However, I don't think we generally use the descriptive name to name planets after. You earlier edits to the article have probable been reverted because they were incomplete and without explanation. Your suggestion to rename this article to Taurean II should be discussed and weighed against other possibilities here throughout the next few days. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:22, May 13, 2013 (UTC) ::The descriptive form of Taurus is Taurean, which means "of or pertaining to the Taurus sign" http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Taurean which is probably why it was put here, since Taurean system would suggest the star is named Taurus. I have an open mind here but I'm leaning oppose to a move. 31dot (talk) 22:40, May 13, 2013 (UTC) :::There is also an adjective naming convention used in some star systems, like the Bajoran system. :::If there is no obvious choice, should MA:RESOURCE apply, and the planet be left unnamed? A merge to Taurean system is a possibility, perhaps with background notes about the possible names of the second planet. --[boxed] (P.O.Box) 23:30, May 13, 2013 (UTC) ::There should be some sort of article here, since there is enough information to sustain one. I suppose we could do something like "Taurean system planet", though that's a little awkward. 31dot (talk) 23:56, May 13, 2013 (UTC) If this planet was indeed located in the Taurus system, wouldn't the numerous references to the system itself throughout the episode have included that? Such as Scotty stating that they were in orbit around the second planet of the TAURUS system. The name Taurean is used consistently and repeatedly in the episode. Quite possibly this was an effort by the episode's author - most likely working with a production 'bible' - to be able to use a similar sounding, but different name for the system (or after discovering/being told that the name Taurus had already been taken for an existing system in Star Trek lore, only having to alter the name slightly to please Gene) Designating it Taurean II is certainly more correct than leaving it named Taurus II for two reasons: One - it is never named specifically in the episode as this (thus making it incorrect). Two - as Spock would point out, there is no logic in naming two completely disimilar planets, in different parts of the galaxy, with the same name (this is exactly why production bibles exist). Again, while the name Taurean II is also never used in the episode, it follows Star Trek naming convention for other 'unnamed' planets such as Eminiar VII, Cestus III, Talos IV, Ceti Alpha V, and so on. But, I suppose to keep strictly to canon, it should be designated, "Second planet of the Taurean System". lol :D (P.S. I only implied laziness because the staff usually does terrific work here at MA weeding out mistakes like this. It seems a glaring error that two completely different planets would have the same name (this should have set off a bunch of red flags), yet no one bothered to check that the name Taurus II was ever used officially in the episode, instead just providing a link to the other duplicate name. There was no disrespect intended.) ::::I don't have a problem with this being at Taurean II, as it fits the conventions, and is the term used in the episode. It's entirely conceivable that Taurean is the actual name for the system, and that the name is still a reference to the Taurus sign. Of course, it's also entirely conceivable that some other culture named the system, and the name has nothing to do with the Taurus sign, as the meaning of the word for them is completely different. It is a big galaxy after all. - 02:30, May 14, 2013 (UTC) :::::Taurean is the adjective formed from the noun "Taurus", just as we have Jovian and Jupiter, Martian and Mars, Uranian and Uranus, Romulan and Romulus. Taurus, in contrast to completely fictional names like Eminiar or Talos, does have a unique adjective that already exists in our language now, it is Taurean. Naming the planet Taurean II would me similar to calling the Romulan homeworld "Romulan" or the Bajoran homeworld "Bajoran XI" which would be unacceptable. In this episode, only the adjective (Taurean) is heard. That doesn't mean, however, based on common naming conventions, that the planet is not normally called "Taurus II". Thus, I oppose a move to Taurean II. --Jörg (talk) 04:38, May 14, 2013 (UTC) :I think it is a bit misleading to jump from the adjective form to a specific noun. Even if Taurus has the adjectiv form Taurean, it doesn't necessarily follow that the only possible noun form of Taurean must be Taurus. What about "Tauris" or "Taurea", for example? For what it's worth, "Taurean" also seems to be a proper given name ( , for example), so the system may have been named after a person, similar to the Marcus system containing Marcus II. --Cid Highwind (talk) 05:12, May 14, 2013 (UTC) ::::I think it's worth noting that the amount of content here might be a reason to try and find a solution that doesn't involve the unnamed planets page, but it doesn't exclude that page as an option. So I support moving the page somewhere, with Taurean II being my preference, as I'm more opposed leaving it here than anything else. - 06:24, May 14, 2013 (UTC) So, any decision made on this subject? It's been about two months since the last feedback. Seems like the weight of the discussions falls towards renaming it Taurean II (and away from the non-canon, never heard on screen, already officially used for another planet, 'Taurus II'). :For what it's worth, you can count me in the "pro-move" crowd, which would make that three of us (Archduk3, you, me) vs. two leaning against a move (31dot, Jörg). That's only a slight majority, so it would be best if an uninvolved admin could weigh the arguments against each other and decide. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:04, July 11, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Also for what it's worth (a lot less then Cid's proposal I'm guessing :D), I'd merge it into unnamed planets. Ultimatly that's what it is after all, only the system was named. We're discussion which of two very good educated educated guesses is the best, but they remain guesses. I didn't comment on the original discussion because (iirc) I thought there woudn't be much support for that, but heck, seeing as there is now an impasse, maybe it might have some appeal as a compromise position. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:53, July 16, 2013 (UTC) :Perhaps more, actually. ;) Seeing that there is precedence for having planets on that unnamed list while their system is named (Chin'toka system, for example), I wouldn't mind that outcome either. If anyone thinks that planets always should be named after their system in that case, this discussion would need to be located over there, anyway. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:34, July 16, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Looking over how the Chin'toka System planets were handled, I am now in the camp that 'Taurus/Taurean/Taurea II' (lol!) should be treated as an 'unnamed planet' in the Taurean System and handled the same way as those unnamed planets were (which was very good!). Because sticking to canon - - the planet really was never actually named on screen (just as those two in Chin'toka) - - is really what Memory Alpha does best. :) ::::Since an uninvolved admin hasn't moved/merged this yet, I'm just letting everyone know I intend to merge this with the unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets page sometime this week. This is the last call for comments and the such. - 23:22, August 13, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Is this article based on new evidence regarding the planet's name? I'm asking because we once had]] a long discussion where it was determined that the planet name (then Taurus II, though Taurean was also suggested) was unknown and it was therefore merged into Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:40, July 28, 2014 (UTC) :::::::Scotty refers to the system as the "Taurean system" in the ship's log. http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/TAS006.htmThrowback (talk) 12:24, July 28, 2014 (UTC) ::::::I'm sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of that. The mention of the Taurean system was never under dispute, what I'm wondering about is if we know planet two of the system is called "Taurean II". -- Capricorn (talk) 12:38, July 28, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::Is there any new evidence? Or is a merge the logical solution? Tom (talk) 23:49, March 7, 2015 (UTC) :::::::::We have two other examples I know of where the planet name is derived from the system name; Avery III and "J-25 VI". If we merge Taurean II into the Taurean system, what about these other examples?Lakenheath72 (talk) 21:45, April 4, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Avery was mentioned by startrek.com as you yourself pointed out, so that one is not relevant anymore. Regarding the question: Taurean should be merged if there's no evidence of its name, and so independently should J-25 VI (ie there's no relation where if one should be merged the other should, each ought to be judged on its individual merit). So, concretely : you should raise the issue on J-25 VI if you think there's no source for the name. And secondly, since in a previous life it was you that created this page, it would be extremely helpful if you might explain where the name came from, you are the key to resolving this discussion. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:22, April 6, 2015 (UTC) :::::::::I created that page when I wasn't adhering to the policies of the project. I have come to realize the best course of avoiding misunderstanding and conflict is to adhere to the policies. The planet was never mentioned by name in the episode. It was referred to as the sixth planet in the J-25 system. So, at the time, I thought it must be J-25 VI. However, this was me doing my own thing. There was no canon support for the name. I am working at the planets, starting at the beginning with the "A's" and ending with the "Z's", so I won't get to it right away. If you would like to place a merger notice on that page, I will supoort your decision.Lakenheath72 (talk) 04:59, April 6, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Mistakes happen. But great, the page should definitely be merged then, as should "J-25 VI"; I've put that one up. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:37, April 6, 2015 (UTC) ::::::::Merged. Information from this article is already and almost exactly covered here on the "Unnamed planets" page, so this is also a duplicate entry on Memory Alpha. Tom (talk) 19:29, June 9, 2015 (UTC) Merge of Chin'toka I, Chin'toka II, Chin'toka III and Chin'toka IV with unnamed planets We don't know what these planets are named, and they are already handled at Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant planets as is customary. In this case, handling them together there is actually the better solution, because we have pictures of several of the planets, but no identification of which is which. Additionally, one of the planets might instead be named AR-558. There's also some dubious information on some of the pages, about Chin'toka II, Chin'toka III being a binary pair and inhabited. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:18, January 4, 2020 (UTC) :Fair enough, I saw that Bajor I through Bajor XIV all had their own articles and figured that was a good enough precedent. However, the fact that Chin'toka II and III are a binary pair comes from the script. And between Martok saying he was transporting troops to "both planets", and Weyoun 7 raging about them landing on Cardassian soil, I think it's clear that they're both inhabited, if perhaps not technically Class M. - Mitchz95 (talk) 14:46, January 7, 2020 (UTC)